Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R.R. College Of Veterinary And Animal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 2021
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6017/2020
R.R. College Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Deoli, Distt. Tonk
Through Dinesh Agrawal S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Agrawal, Aged
About 48 Years, Chairman, Micro Vision Society, 36, Saket
Colony, Deoli, Distt. Tonk.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Animal
Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Assistant Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. along
with Mr.Laxmikant Malpura, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Sheetal Mirdha, Addl. Advocate
General along with Mr.Prateek Singh,
Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
ORDER
Judgment Reserved on : 15th January, 2021
Date of Order : 30th January, 2021
By the Court:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-College for seeking a direction to issue requisite No Objection Certificate (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'NOC') in Format-II, as per the provisions contained in the Veterinary Council of India (Procedure For Recognition and De-Recognition Of Veterinary Colleges And Veterinary Qualifications) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the VCI Rules, 2017'). The petitioner-College further prays to allow them to conduct teaching of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Degree Course in their (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (2 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] College. The petitioner-College, in furtherance of above two prayers, has sought permission to conduct requisite process of admission to B.V.Sc and A.H.Degree Course (Session 2020-21) in pursuance of the notification dated 11.05.2020, issued by the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner for Rajasthan Pre-Veterinary Test (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the RPVT-2020').
2. The facts, in nutshell, as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner claims to be a College run by a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 - registered on 30.05.2007. The petitioner-College has pleaded that it was eligible to apply for recognition of Veterinary College, as per the notification dated 19.05.2017, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that it was eligible for issuance of NOC, as per the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the VCI Rules, 2017, as it had applied before the State Government to issue NOC to run the Veterinary and Animal Science College.
3. The petitioner-College has pleaded that the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Rajasthan had issued a letter dated 13.11.2017 with certain directions. The said letter had communicated that the petitioner-College since intended to establish a College, Government of Rajasthan had initially issued NOC dated 03.09.2007 and the said NOC was extended by letter dated 21.02.2014 till 21.02.2016. The letter dated 13.11.2017 (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (3 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] further extended the NOC for a period of two years with the condition that the petitioner-College was to start College after completing all the formalities/requirements to run a Veterinary College.
4. The petitioner-College has pleaded that vide letter dated 30.08.2018 they communicated to the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi that the petitioner-College after seeking NOC from the Government of Rajasthan was planning to start R.R. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in Deoli, District Tonk. The petitioner-College for recognition of its College also submitted an application in the prescribed Format-I along with all the required documents and also enclosed a Demand Draft amounting to Rs.1.5 Lakhs drawn in favour of Veterinary Council of India payable at New Delhi.
5. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that the Central Government by letter dated 21.09.2018 informed the petitioner- College that they have not submitted the essentiality certificate from the State Government (Form-III) and consent of affiliation from the University for opening of New Veterinary College (Form- IV).
6. The petitioner-College has pleaded that the State Government issued letter dated 05.04.2019 to the Director, Animal Husbandry Department and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, regarding NOC and essentiality certificate, sought by the petitioner-College in Form-II and Form-III. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that the Department of Animal Husbandry, (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (4 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] Government of Rajasthan issued essentiality certificate on 11.06.2019 to the petitioner-College.
7. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that vide letter dated 30.08.2019 the Registrar, Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner had informed the Assistant Commissioner (AH), Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi that as per the inspection report, the University had agreed to affiliate the R.R. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Deoli, District Tonk subject to inclusion of the Veterinary College or the Veterinary Qualification (Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry/Bachelor of Veterinary Science), to be awarded by the University to the students, by the Central Government.
8. The petitioner-College has pleaded that vide letter dated 29.08.2019 a request was made by them to the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi enclosing essentiality certificate, issued by the Government of Rajasthan as well as the consent of affiliation from Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner for opening of R.R. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Deoli, District Tonk. The petitioner-College is said to have requested in the said letter to consider the proposal and depute a team for inspection so that accreditation could be accorded at the earliest.
9. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that the Government of India vide letter dated 30.10.2019 communicated that as per Rule 7 of VCI Rules, 2017, the application in Form-I for (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (5 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] opening the Veterinary College was sent to the Veterinary Council of India for their scrutiny and recommendation. The application in Form-I, along with the enclosures, were examined in the office of the Council and certain deficiencies were found in the documents. The letter of Veterinary Council of India, pointing out deficiencies in the application form, was also enclosed and at serial No.4 in the application Form-I, in the list of enclosures, NOC from the State Government was not enclosed by the petitioner-College in the prescribed Form-II of the VCI Rules, 2017.
10. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that they vide letters dated 14.08.2018 and 31.10.2019 requested the State Government to issue NOC and essentiality certificate in prescribed Form-II of the VCI Rules, 2017 and also prayed to revise and issue the provisional NOC. The petitioner-College has further pleaded that when no action was taken by the State Government on the request made by them to issue NOC in the prescribed Format (Form-II), they again wrote a letter dated 24.01.2020 in this regard. The petitioner-College had pleaded that it has invested a huge amount and has developed the requisite infrastructure to establish the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences and as per the provisions contained in the VCI Rules, 2017, they are fully qualified for teaching of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Degree Course but only on account of non-issuance of the requisite NOC and essentiality certificate in format (Form-II), they were not permitted to participate in the admission process, as conducted by the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner for the RPVT, 2020 for Session 2020-21. The (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (6 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] petitioner-College has placed on record the notification dated 11.05.2020 issued for RPVT, 2020 and further said to have sent a notice for demand of justice dated 13.05.2020 before filing of the present writ petition.
11. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-College are as follows:-
(i) The non-issuance of NOC in format (Form-II) to the petitioner-College by the State Government in spite of fulfilling all the conditions by them to run the College, as per the provisions contained in the VCI Rules, 2017, is arbitrary and illegal.
(ii) The petitioner-College after investing a huge amount and developing the infrastructure to establish the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, as per the provisions contained in the VCI Rules, 2017, cannot be deprived to impart education (Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Degree Course) and by not permitting the petitioner-College to participate in the admission process for the Session 2020-21, the fundamental right of the petitioner-College to run the educational institution has been denied without any justification.
12. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have pleaded that the petitioner-College had submitted an application in the year 2007, seeking NOC for opening the College imparting Veterinary Courses for the Session 2006-07 and considering the said application, the respondent-Department issued NOC to the petitioner-College dated 03.09.2007 and on the (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (7 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] request made by the petitioner-College, the NOC which was issued for two years, was extended till 21.02.2016.
13. The respondents have further pleaded that subsequently in the year 2017, the petitioner-College requested again for issuance of NOC and the Department vide order dated 13.11.2017 extended the NOC for a period of two years i.e. till 12.11.2019.
14. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner-College till filing of the petition had not taken any step for renewal of NOC, as the same has lapsed on 12.11.2019 and in absence of any fresh NOC, the respondent-State could not have issued NOC in the format, required as per the VCI Rules, 2017.
15. The respondents have further pleaded that ever since the issuance of NOC in the year 2007, the petitioner-College instead of making efforts to establish the College and make it functional, sat over the matter and in a routine manner sought extensions of NOC from time to time. The respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner-College was first required to apply for fresh NOC and only on acquiring the same, the NOC could be issued in the format, as prescribed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.
16. This Court, during the course of hearing, directed to file an affidavit by the responsible Officer of the respondent-Department with regard to steps being taken by the State Government after receiving the application of the petitioner-College for the purpose of grant of NOC in the prescribed format.
17. In pursuance of the Court's direction, the additional affidavit has been filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (8 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] Department of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur. The additional affidavit mentions the fact about issuing essentiality certificate to the petitioner-College on 11.06.2019. It further states that after the petitioner-College submitted the essentiality certificate before the Veterinary Council of India, the Veterinary Council of India vide its communication dated 30.10.2019 directed the petitioner-College to submit NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II) and on receiving the said communication from the Veterinary Council of India, the petitioner-College vide letter dated 31.10.2019 for the first time requested the Department of Animal Husbandry to issue NOC in prescribed format (Form-II) and the said communication was received by the respondent on 07.11.2019 i.e. five days before expiry of NOC on 12.11.2019, issued to the petitioner-College by the State Government.
18. The stand of State Government is that no application seeking extension of NOC was submitted by the petitioner-College prior to expiry of earlier NOC, issued to them and the said earlier NOC has already expired on 12.11.2019 and if the petitioner-College is desirous of seeking NOC in the prescribed Format, from the State Government, then a fresh application is required to be filed by them, as per the circular dated 12.10.2020 and in case the petitioner-College files such an application seeking NOC, then the same is required to be considered at the level of Chief Minister's Office.
19. The additional affidavit states that in regard to the contention of the petitioner-College that the Department's own communications reflect that the petitioner-College had sought (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (9 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] NOC in Form-II from the Department, the Department has taken a stand that mentioning of Form-II in the communications dated 31.12.2018, 28.02.2019, 05.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 was an inadvertent error and no such document exists indicating that the petitioner-College had ever sought NOC in the prescribed format. The additional affidavit further states that for the first time the petitioner-College sought for issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II) vide communication dated 31.10.2019 and the petitioner-College cannot be permitted to base their entire case on the inadvertent error crept in these communications.
20. The petitioner-College has also filed counter-affidavit and stated that they have submitted an application on 14.08.2018 and thereafter proceedings were initiated by the respondent- Department, as evident from the note-sheet dated 12.09.2018 wherein the petitioner-College is said to have demanded essentiality certificate and NOC from the Department for accreditation of their College. The petitioner-College has further stated in the said counter-affidavit that copy of note-sheet dated 12.09.2018 has been obtained by them under the Right to Information Act and perusal of the same would reflect that time and again Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry had written for issuance of NOC and essentiality certificate to the petitioner-College in the prescribed formats i.e. Form-II and Form-III respectively.
21. The petitioner-College further reiterate in their counter- affidavit that essentiality certificate was issued in Format (Form- III) on 11.06.2019 and for the purpose of issuing NOC, the (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (10 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] Director, Department of Animal Husbandry vide letter dated 03.03.2020 constituted a Committee for carrying out re-inspection with regard to issuance of NOC in Format (Form-II) and the inspection was conducted by the said Committee on 06.03.2020 and thereafter the State Government did not take any action and the matter was kept pending resulting into denial to the petitioner-College for issuance of NOC in the prescribed Form-II.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-College cannot be made to suffer only on account of inaction by the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that if there was no coordination between different Authorities for issuing NOC in Format (Form-II) the petitioner-College cannot be made liable for the same. He further submitted that various note- sheets, filed before this Court, clearly make out a case that the petitioner-College had applied for issuance of NOC in format (Form-II) as back as in August, 2018 and the State Government in spite of issuing essentiality certificate, deprived the petitioner- College to participate in the admission process for the Session 2020-21 for Graduate Course (Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry).
23. Learned counsel further submitted that the requisite inspections were carried out for issuance of NOC and the State Government is required to issue NOC in format (Form-II) to the petitioner-College and they cannot be now permitted to take resort to the recent circular, issued by them on 12.10.2020, providing for consideration of application at the level of Chief Minister's Office.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM)
(11 of 16) [CW-6017/2020]
24. Ms.Sheetal Mirdha, Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner-College cannot be granted any relief as they failed to apply for extension of NOC before 12.11.2019 and if the petitioner-College fulfills the parameters for issuance of NOC, they are always free to apply afresh and the Authorities can consider such application, as per the prevalent Rules and the requirement of law, as contained in the circular dated 12.10.2020.
25. This Court is primarily required to consider right of the petitioner-College for issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II), as per the requirement, contained in the Rule 4 of the VCI Rules, 2017.
26. This Court finds that the petitioner-College was issued NOC in the year 2007 and further extensions were granted from time to time and in the last extension, granted to the petitioner-College, the State Government directed the petitioner-College to complete all the formalities for starting the College within a period of two years i.e. up to 12.11.2019.
27. This is an admitted case of both the parties that from 2007 till filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner-College had not started its College and as such, the NOC, which was issued only remained a paper formality.
28. This Court finds that the petitioner-College had applied for starting the College, as per the requirements contained in VCI Rules, 2017 and the communication dated 30.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner-College by the Government of India whereby the NOC from the State Government was not enclosed in the prescribed format (Form-II) of the VCI Rules, 2017. (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM)
(12 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] 29. The petitioner-College has submitted a letter dated
31.10.2019 wherein request was made that as per the letter of Veterinary Council of India dated 31.10.2019, the State Government is required to issue NOC in format (Form-II).
30. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-College that vide order dated 14.08.2018 they had requested to issue the essentiality certificate and NOC for Veterinary College, this Court finds that the said letter mentions about NOC in favour of the petitioner-College issued upto 31.11.2017 and further asked for essentiality certificate and NOC from the Government for accreditation of the College from the Veterinary Council of India. The prayer made in the said letter specifically asks for issuance of essentiality certificate and not of NOC in form-II.
31. This Court further finds that the petitioner-College has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that they had applied for the first time before the Government of India by writing a letter on 30.08.2018 (Annexure-4) seeking recognition of new Veterinary College. This Court finds that when the petitioner-College itself has requested the Central Government for recognition on 30.08.2018, there did not arise any question of seeking NOC in Form-II from the State Government by writing letter dated 14.08.2018.
32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-College that various letters issued by the State Government dated 31.12.2018, 05.04.2019, 11.04.2019, 12.04.2019 and 15.04.2019 clearly establish that case of the petitioner-College for issuance of NOC in format (Form-II) was pending consideration at the level of (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (13 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] State Government and as such, the State Government completely failed to discharge its duty, this Court finds that the letters issued containing the subject matter of issuance of NOC and essentiality certificate to the petitioner-College but the Authorities had taken steps only to issue essentiality certificate to the petitioner-College, which was ultimately issued on 11.06.2019.
33. This Court finds that the petitioner-College was also required to obtain NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II) from the State Government and such NOC was demanded by the petitioner- College by writing a letter dated 31.10.2019, received by the Department on 07.11.2019 i.e. five days prior to expiry of NOC on 12.11.2019, it cannot be said that the State Government failed to issue NOC to the petitioner-College in the prescribed format (Form-II).
34. This Court further finds that the petitioner-College had not filed any application for seeking extension of NOC prior to expiry of earlier NOC on 12.11.2019 and as such, it cannot be presumed that only by making a reference of certain letters, issued by the State Government, the case of the petitioner-College was required to be considered for issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II).
35. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the note-sheet dated 12.09.2018, filed along with their counter- affidavit, clearly reflects that matter of issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II) was sub-judice before the State Government since August, 2018, suffice it to say that the said note-sheet does not confer any right on any person to claim that a (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (14 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] decision has been taken by any Authority while recording the proceedings in the said note-sheet until final order is not communicated to the person concerned. The Apex Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 has clearly held that the note-sheets do not form or substitute any order and no right can be claimed on the basis of such note-sheet. The extract of para-14 of the judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as under:-
"14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department; gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned."
36. The Apex Court, while dealing with somewhat similar issue, held in the case of Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705, as follows:-
"43. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Article 77(1) and (2) or Article 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) (15 of 16) [CW-6017/2020] earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review.
52. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the noting recorded in the official files by the officers of the Government at different levels and even the Ministers do not become decision of the Government unless the same is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2) and is communicated to the affected persons. The notings and/or decisions recorded in the file do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can neither be challenged in a court nor made basis for seeking relief. Even if the competent authority records noting in the file, which indicates that some decision has been taken by the concerned authority, the same can always be reviewed by the same authority or reversed or over-turned or overruled by higher functionary/authority in the Government."
37. This Court finds that the additional affidavit specifically states that mentioning of Form-II in communications dated 31.12.2018, 28.02.2019, 05.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 was an inadvertent error and this Court does not have any reason to disbelieve that the respondent-Department was dealing with issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II) while issuing these communications.
38. This Court further finds that the petitioner-College has not placed on record any communication/letter seeking NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II), except their communication dated 31.10.2019. The petitioner-College was required to be vigilant and when the Veterinary Council of India informed them vide communication dated 30.10.2019 that they have not submitted NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II), the petitioner-College on 31.10.2019, for the first time, made the communication to the respondent-State Authorities for grant of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II).
(Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM)
(16 of 16) [CW-6017/2020]
39. This Court finds that the petitioner-College also failed to seek extension of NOC, prior to applying for accreditation of their College before the Veterinary Council of India and the last NOC granted by the State Government in favour of the petitioner- College from 2007 also lapsed on 12.11.2019.
40. This Court finds that the Authorities which are dealing with the case of the petitioner-College should have been careful and prudent while considering the case for issuance of essentiality certificate or NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II). The issuance of certain orders and drawing of certain note-sheets have created false hope in the mind of the petitioner-College and as such this Court does not approve such kind of act of the respondents, however, the same would not result into any right being created in favour of the petitioner-College for issuance of NOC with retrospective effect.
41. This Court finds that if the petitioner-College fulfills the requisite conditions for issuance of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II), they are always free to apply before the competent authority, who is expected to consider such application in accordance with the prevalent policy and parameters required for grant of NOC in the prescribed format (Form-II).
42. The instant writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Solanki DS, PS (Downloaded on 01/02/2021 at 09:44:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)